I wasn't referring to anyone in particular DJ, I just noticed the 'atmosphere' changed from banter and musing on different perspectives to ... a more intellectualised, serious tone of solidifying oppositions, rather than still embracing and leaving room for....

For me these things - the ironic / amusing are the things that by their very nature, there can be no definitive or easy way to describe the 'feeling', it's right brain looking at the left brain. And right brain is crap at finding the right words, but if you give the task to left brain it makes it too definitive and concrete and it loses the 'feeling' aspect.

I did like Rach's suggestion because when we 'relax' we shift from wholly analytical left brain processing to include the energies of right brain embracing > it leaves room for nuance and atmosphere, even if it doesn't provide the words to describe or articulate it to the left brain, we still make 'meaning' of stuff in a wider context.

What makes no sense in resistance, finds its balance in acceptance, even if it's wordless.

Ironically it's the same with science and consciousness, form and formless - co-existence and co creation rather than one or the other being the whole and soul/sole of stuff. The arguments that criticise one or the other are actually using the same rationale and 'tools', as the one they're criticising. That's the holographic irony.

Snowy said: It's funny to note that even denying the possibility of objectifying the commonality of our perspectives involves objectifying it.

To use the television set analogy - if one is on one 'channel' one is seeing / hearing / experiencing a different 'version' of whatever to someone on another channel. If one steps back (relaxes their grip on their own perspective) and sees all the channels are operating simultaneously, then one sees the connections within the separations are also the connections of the separations - it's co-creation and co-existence intertwined.

One could then see that there is no concept of consciousness outside of science (to give it the label), and no science outside of consciousness (to give it the ‘form’) simultaneously - they're all just 'labels', created productions / dramas / sitcoms / romances / fairy tales / documentaries / soap operas and 'reality' shows dependent upon which channel we're tuning into in this moment.

The 'other channels' are just playing different programs, all simultaneously.

Snowy said: Also there's a distinct lack of concern over here right now at not being comprehended unless there's a clear vector on the part of the one who didn't understand to want to understand.

Thank you Jen. Once again, You provide the right words at the right time that point to insight. I gain a lot from reading your posts and messages even when my perspective tightens and narrows down. You have a way of writing that really does it and I think it opens us all up.

snowheight wrote:I agree with this idea that the observer isn't independent from his observations, but how would it be possible to get someone who is attached to a world view that has material realism at it's root to consider this?

Well, Eckhart often said that suffering leads us to this understanding ... when we see that our 'materialistic' strategies do not work and do not bring us happiness, but only suffering ... when we are tired to suffer, then we might consider an alternate understanding of the world and life ... this is also the core idea of Buddhism, everything in the Buddha's spiritual quest started from the fact of suffering and the will to understand its root ... and this root is ego, ie. precisely the sense of separation between the observer and the world that we were speaking of ...

Suffering isn't the only way to that understanding.

What are the other ways ?

"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)

smiileyjen101 wrote:Interesting thread weaving in and out and unfolding (as it does)

Phil2 said: This is the biggest mistake of science, postulating that matter exists independently of the observer (ie. consciousness) ... giving rise to 'autonomous' objects (and time associated to their repetitive behaviour and 'laws') ... and this is the root of 'materialism' too ... creating a world in which the human being becomes an 'alien' ... an 'object' ...

Why do you call it the "biggest mistake" then? It's just unfolding awareness unfolding in / as individual aspects being picked up and received - isn't it?

Oh dear that likely makes no sense. I'll just sidle over and join Snowy in the naughty corner.Btw folks - Snowy started his post with ... "It's funny how....." and yet it was all taken so finitely cognitively / intellectually seriously without 'feeling' (Snowy, I went by feel and your beginning gave me the (music) score to flow with.)

Sometimes we get analytically (left brain) besotted with a particular aspect of one of the characters in/on our tv screens, not realising that our tv screens are not as multi-dimensional as all the energies flowing into / through it that our right brain is far more able to absorb without words. I liked what Rach said

Relax ... stay with it ... and wait for the mud to settle.

Swimming in mud can be fun too!......

Hey Jenny, how's been my girl?

What I wrote to 'trails was a postcard from the edge. As one crazy, bearded and bedraggled American poet once put it, (paraphrasing) "Out here, on the perimeter, we are all stoned."

Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

Phil2 wrote:Well, Eckhart often said that suffering leads us to this understanding ... when we see that our 'materialistic' strategies do not work and do not bring us happiness, but only suffering ... when we are tired to suffer, then we might consider an alternate understanding of the world and life ... this is also the core idea of Buddhism, everything in the Buddha's spiritual quest started from the fact of suffering and the will to understand its root ... and this root is ego, ie. precisely the sense of separation between the observer and the world that we were speaking of ...

Suffering isn't the only way to that understanding.

What are the other ways ?

From reading and corresponding on the topic, the stereotypical descriptions of the various paths seem to be:

1) suffering2) devotion3) service4) insight

These are interesting characterizations, but like any stereotype it seems to me to come with a generous side-order of bullshit.

Mostly everyone suffers to one degree or another. Most people consider something to be sacred. Lots of people make sacrifices in their lives for something or other. Most people are sometimes curious about one thing or another.

The direct answer to your question is that there are as many potential paths as there are people.

One way to see that the characterizations of the paths are false is to recognize that true insight cannot fail to drop one to one's knees, and true devotion simply cannot fail to lead to the deepest and most profound of insight.

Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

snowheight wrote:Can't speak for anyone else, but these days I value honesty at least enough to prefer being informed I wasn't understood over than a veneer of politesse.

Also there's a distinct lack of concern over here right now at not being comprehended unless there's a clear vector on the part of the one who didn't understand to want to understand.

Good to know, I wanted to understand, if not, I wouldn't have read it three times, then actually went back after you translated and tried to see why I didn't get it to begin with.

Generally speaking, the best way to come to a better understanding of something someone writes is to ask them to explain it in a bit more depth.

The "translation" was a gross oversimplification. There's always a trade-off when expressing artifacts of the mind between:

a) brevity/succinctness

and

b) a comprehensive exposition

Mind, and even intellect, even complex thought, aren't enemies that have to be avoided. Mind can be a very useful tool. It's a process, and while it can't step outside of itself, it can be used to express it's own limits. If there's no identification with it, it presents no danger. While it provides no ultimate answers, it can be used to explain why it can't. While it's a hindrance to meditation, it is the only tool available to express an explanation of why that is so.

Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.